13 August, 2009

Presuppositionalist Nonsense Part I

Following a few recent encounters with some presuppositionalists, I have given some thought to their position on the laws of logic. It seems clear to me that the laws of logic are simply general rules that we humans use to interpret the world around us. However, the presupper will have you believe they have some sort of transcendent mystical origins and are in fact a reflection of God's nature.

Let's just say I am skeptical of this.

A favourite starting point for their onslaught of idiocy is to ask a non-believer for an account of the abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic. This initial question commits the fallacy of the loaded question. For example it's like asking someone "Have you stopped beating your wife?". In this case, regardless of the answer, you are automatically insinuating that the person beats his wife when there is no justification for this. Similarly, presuppositionalists are loading their question with the 'fact' that the laws of logic are abstract, universal and invariant and then simply asking the non-believer to account for that fact, thus putting their opponent on the defensive. This makes a non-believer think that they should indeed have an account for these proposed properties of the laws of logic, even though the presupper has never actually proven their initial premise. It's just a devious deflection tactic.

As for these proposed properties of logic, I for one don't accept that the laws of logic are necessarily universal or invariant. I will, however, concede that they are abstract in that they are not physical entities but instead they are used as a tool for human consciousness to describe physical phenomenon. I will not say that I am certain that they are not universal or invariant, but I think there is room for debate. For starters, I doubt whether it can be proven that they are definitely universal or invariant as this would be an impossible task. On the other hand, if the laws of logic are not universal or not invariant, it can easily be proven by finding an example of such a case.

So, if it can be shown that a law of logic does not hold in any particular situation, then this would automatically refute the presuppositionalist position, as it would disqualify their claim that the laws of logic, and thus the character of God, is unchanging. This would be devastating for their position as it would not be consistent with their claims to certainty.

So are there any incidences where the law of logic do not hold?

Well, yes.

In fact, none other than Einstein himself provided a scenario where an object can be said to be both moving and not moving at the same time, violating the law of non-contradiction...

Imagine person A sitting on a train and a person B standing on the platform. Both are looking at an object on a table in the train carriage, let's say it's a flower in a vase. The flower is clearly visible to both A and B, albeit through the carriage window for B. As the train passes by the platform, the flower stays still from the perspective of person A and yet the flower moves from the perspective of person B. The flower is clearly both moving and not moving at the same time.

So is it moving or not moving? Which interpretation is correct? Well, the answer is that both are equally correct. That is relativity.

A more extreme example would be to say that although you think you are not moving right now (assuming you are sitting at a desk with your computer), from the theoretical perspective of someone looking at you through a telescope from outside our solar system you are travelling at 500,000-600,000 mph. That's a big contradiction!!

So, if you think about it, the law of non-contradiction is broken all the time. This law states that something cannot be both A and not A. Well if A is movement, then, due to relativity, many things are both moving and not moving at the same time when considered from multiple perspectives, and, crucially, all interpretations are equally correct.

Now some may say that this example doesn't matter because the perspectives of two different observers does not qualify for the law of non-contradiction. They would say that I am equivocating or deliberately misleading by using ambiguous definitions of the same word or concept. However, I am not doing this. Movement of the flowers from different perspectives is not an equivocation. It is an objective description of the flowers from two different, yet equally accurate, perspectives.

What this means is that the law non-contradiction is not universal - it does not hold in all places and at all times. In the above example of the train it holds for person A and it holds for person B, but when both A and B are considered at the same time, it does not hold. Hence, it is not universal. No further examples are needed - point proven.
(However, for those still in doubt as to the validity of this example, I will provide a different example of the law of non-contradiction not holding in part II)

How is this the case? Why does a law of logic not universally represent reality?

Well, this is actually consistent with the idea that the laws of logic are simply mechanisms our brains use to understand reality and process information. These laws of logic were necessarily subject to how reality was thought to be in the past. However, as we have now seen, the law of non-contradiction is not compatible with relativity. I imagine that this can be somewhat explained by the fact that relativity, in it's current form, is a modern idea and so it does not fit into the classical laws of logic.

Now that we have shown that the law of non-contradiction is not universal, how would the presuppositionalist respond? Here is a typical response:

Riiiight!!!! If the law of non-contradiction was proven wrong, it would also necessarily NOT be proven wrong as well.

Now the above is not a strawman (scmike says it here and Sye says something similar in the sidebar here). Let's examine what this means and if it's a rational response. Essentially, the presupper is claiming that if you show that the law of non-contradiction is wrong in one instance, then contradictions are universally acceptable. This means that that 'A' can equal 'not A' whenever you want it to, hence 'proven wrong' can become 'not proven wrong' - and hey presto, you have just proven that the law of non-contradiction is actually true!!!

There is one word and one word only for that position - pathetic

First of all, we did not show that the law of non-contradiction is wrong, just that it is not universal. It is still a useful law. It still works in most, if not all, cases from an individual's perspective. It only seems to break down when multiple perspectives are considered at the same time.

Secondly, extrapolating from this to say that any contradictions are now allowed is just a juvenile response. It leads to an infinite regression of absurdity as demonstrated here:

Non-believer - "The law of contradiction does not hold in this particular instance, therefore it is not universal"

Presupper - "If the law of non-contradiction is wrong, it would also necessarily NOT be wrong as well. Hence the law of non-contradiction is right"

Non-believer - "If the law of non-contradiction is right due to fact that it has been proven wrong, then it is also necessarily NOT right. Hence the law of non-contradiction is wrong"

Etc....ad nauseum

So the assertion that if the law of non-contradiction was proven wrong, it would also necessarily NOT be proven wrong as well is clearly absurd and should be dismissed as such.

To conclude part I of this post, I just want to re-emphasis that the original claim of the presupper is that the laws of logic are universal. This is impossible to prove, so there is a huge weight of burden on the presupper to back up this claim, and as such they never do. They simply say it, again and again and again.

What is possible though, and quite easy in fact, is to disprove this claim by simply finding one example of a law of logic not holding true. One single example from a whole universe of possibilities is all it takes to refute the presupper claim.

Well, relativity is a perfect example of this. It breaks the law of non-contradiction as it allows for an object to be both moving and not moving at the same time and in the same way. I stress that this is not equivocation, although the presupper will undoubtedly claim otherwise in a vain attempt to prevent their bubble of semantic lies from bursting.

In short, the presupper position is refuted.

More to follow in Part II

20 comments:

BeamStalk said...

That response by sye and scmike has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

rhiggs said...

Yep.

They have become so dizzy from their circular logic and semantic dancing that they can't see how self-refuting their own arguments are...

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: ”It seems clear to me that the laws of logic are simply general rules that we humans use to interpret the world around us”

And how do you account for these ‘rules’ according to your worldview?

”As for these proposed properties of logic, I for one don't accept that the laws of logic are necessarily universal or invariant.”

Do they necessarily apply to our discussion, and how do you know that they haven’t changed, or won’t change?

”So, if it can be shown that a law of logic does not hold in any particular situation, then this would automatically refute the presuppositionalist position”

And, um, how would this be shown without using logic???

”So, if you think about it, the law of non-contradiction is broken all the time. This law states that something cannot be both A and not A.”

…at the same time and in the same way, which demolishes your relativity argument.

”To conclude part I of this post, I just want to re-emphasis that the original claim of the presupper is that the laws of logic are universal. This is impossible to prove,”

Prove THAT please.

Cheers,

Sye

P.S. Before you come back with Part II, you might want to do some studying on the universality of logic, so you do not further embarrass yourself.

rhiggs said...

"And how do you account for these ‘rules’ according to your worldview?"

I believe the laws of logic are manmade descriptions of how we perceive reality. They describe reality to a high degree of precision, albeit not universally. Besides, your 'account' is so full of holes that I don't think you have any reason to question anyone else's.


"Do they necessarily apply to our discussion, and how do you know that they haven’t changed, or won’t change?"

I don't know. I precede on the assumption that they won't change during a simple discussion but, as I don't think they are necessarily universal, I don't know.


"And, um, how would this be shown without using logic???"

It wouldn't. I never said that.


"…at the same time and in the same way, which demolishes your relativity argument."

No it doesn't.


"Prove THAT please."

Without absolute knowledge, you cannot prove it. If I'm wrong, then prove that logic is universal and invariant.


"P.S. Before you come back with Part II, you might want to do some studying on the universality of logic, so you do not further embarrass yourself."

I have no reason to doubt your authority on embarrassing oneself

Sye TenB said...

Rhiggs said: ”I believe the laws of logic are manmade descriptions of how we perceive reality”

With that reasoning, the universe, could have both existed, and not existed, at the same time and in the same way before man made these ‘descriptions,’ so that either you both exist, and not exist at the same time and same way now, (which reduces your position to absurdity), or you believe that man altered the nature of the existence of the universe, which does the same.

”I don't know. I precede on the assumption that they won't change during a simple discussion but, as I don't think they are necessarily universal, I don't know.”

Then on what basis do you apply them to this discussion, or do you?

”It wouldn't. I never said that.”

So, you would prove that logic has changed using logic??? You don’t see the problem there???

”No it doesn't.”

Your incorrect definition of the law of non-contradiction is demolished by the correct one. Differing perceptions in no way refutes the law of non-contradiction as the law states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same way. Differing perceptions are excluded from that definition, as the thing perceived is not done so in the same way.

”Without absolute knowledge, you cannot prove it. If I'm wrong, then prove that logic is universal and invariant.”

Well, you made the claim that “This is impossible to prove,” either prove THAT, or retract it.

I would hope by now that your ‘friends’ are advising you to stop making a fool out of yourself.

Cheers,

Sye

rhiggs said...

"With that reasoning, the universe, could have both existed, and not existed, at the same time and in the same way before man made these ‘descriptions,’ so that either you both exist, and not exist at the same time and same way now, (which reduces your position to absurdity), or you believe that man altered the nature of the existence of the universe, which does the same."

I will address this in part II. Tune in.


"Then on what basis do you apply them to this discussion, or do you?"

Because they are a near-perfect description of reality so I use them all the time. Duh!


"So, you would prove that logic has changed using logic??? You don’t see the problem there???"

That's the problem when you live and die in a magic world of absolutes Sye. Just because there is an example of one law of logic not holding in a particular situation does not mean logic is not extremely useful and perfectly valid in other situations. Thus logic can be used to discuss a situation in which a law of logic does not hold.


"Your incorrect definition of the law of non-contradiction is demolished by the correct one. Differing perceptions in no way refutes the law of non-contradiction as the law states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same way. Differing perceptions are excluded from that definition, as the thing perceived is not done so in the same way."

Explain why differing perceptions of a non-gradient property are not the 'same way'...


"Well, you made the claim that “This is impossible to prove,” either prove THAT, or retract it."

All I'm saying is it is impossible to prove something is universal without absolute knowledge, a claim I imagine you probably agree with. Although, if not, simply prove logic is universal.

BTW you have made the claim that God is the source of logic by the impossibility of the contrary. By your own standards, either prove THAT, or retract it.


"I would hope by now that your ‘friends’ are advising you to stop making a fool out of yourself."

Hey, I'm just throwing around some ideas here. Think what you like. It bothers me not a jot. As for making a fool of oneself, try here for a laugh. LOL, the fool who created that garbage doesn't even allow for comments or discussion (for obvious reasons).

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: ”I will address this in part II. Tune in.”

Should be fun :-)

"Because they are a near-perfect description of reality so I use them all the time. Duh!"

The laws of logic are NOT descriptive, unless of course you wish to tell us what “A CANNOT BE both A and not A at the same time and in the same way” is a description of? – Didn’t think so. Besides, I did not ask what the laws of logic are, I asked on what basis you apply them to the discussion.

”That's the problem when you live and die in a magic world of absolutes Sye. Just because there is an example of one law of logic not holding in a particular situation does not mean logic is not extremely useful and perfectly valid in other situations. Thus logic can be used to discuss a situation in which a law of logic does not hold.”

Well, you haven’t even told us why logic necessarily holds ANYWHERE, let alone on what basis you assume that logic will necessarily hold in one place, while it does not in another.

”Explain why differing perceptions of a non-gradient property are not the 'same way'...”

Cause they are not made by the same perceiver. The flower is not both moving at not moving at the same time in relation to the same perceiver - person A, or person B, therefore the law of non-contradiction is NOT violated.

”All I'm saying is it is impossible to prove something is universal without absolute knowledge”

Actually it’s impossible to prove ANYTHING without universal knowledge, or revelation from same, which is why you cannot prove anything according to your worldview.

”BTW you have made the claim that God is the source of logic by the impossibility of the contrary. By your own standards, either prove THAT, or retract it.”

“The impossibility of the contrary” IS the proof. It is a transcendental argument, all you need to do to refute it is prove your competing source for logic. (Won’t hold my breath though).

rhiggs said...

"The laws of logic are NOT descriptive, unless of course you wish to tell us what “A CANNOT BE both A and not A at the same time and in the same way” is a description of? – Didn’t think so. Besides, I did not ask what the laws of logic are, I asked on what basis you apply them to the discussion."

It's a near-perfect description of how reality seems to function. I use logic on this basis.


"Well, you haven’t even told us why logic necessarily holds ANYWHERE, let alone on what basis you assume that logic will necessarily hold in one place, while it does not in another."

That is not the topic in discussion. But attack strawmen if it pleases you.


"Cause they are not made by the same perceiver. The flower is not both moving at not moving at the same time in relation to the same perceiver - person A, or person B, therefore the law of non-contradiction is NOT violated."

I disagree. I do agree that the law of NC is not violated when taken from one perspective, but I disagree that multiple perspectives don't qualify for consideration. I am saying that 'in the same way' does not simply mean 'from one perspective'.

If persons A and B were giving their subjective opinion of some property of the flowers, say beauty, then this would not apply. They could be both ugly and pretty without violating the law of NC becuase its just subjective opinion. In the case of movement though, it is relative, not subjective. That is an important difference. It is fact that they are both moving and not moving at the same time and in the same way.

I understand that you disagree though. That's fine. You are entitled to your subjective opinion!


"Actually it’s impossible to prove ANYTHING without universal knowledge, or revelation from same, which is why you cannot prove anything according to your worldview."

And as we have established on the other thread, since your revelation could be a trick, you certainly have no basis to claim ANYTHING. All you have is faith. So your point is moot. :D


"The impossibility of the contrary IS the proof. It is a transcendental argument, all you need to do to refute it is prove your competing source for logic. (Won’t hold my breath though)."

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: ”It's a near-perfect description of how reality seems to function. I use logic on this basis.”

Again, what is “A cannot be both A and not A, at the same time and in the same way” a description of? That is a PRESCRIPTION. On what do you base your DESCRIPTION, and on what basis do you apply a description of a past event onto anything but that event? How do you know that the senses and reasoning with which you perceived past events, are accurate?

”That is not the topic in discussion. But attack strawmen if it pleases you.”

It’s not a strawman, but more importantly, even if it were, so what? Is that an absolute logical fallacy?

”I disagree. I do agree that the law of NC is not violated when taken from one perspective, but I disagree that multiple perspectives don't qualify for consideration. I am saying that 'in the same way' does not simply mean 'from one perspective' If persons A and B were giving their subjective opinion of some property of the flowers, say beauty, then this would not apply. They could be both ugly and pretty without violating the law of NC becuase its just subjective opinion. In the case of movement though, it is relative, not subjective.”

Relative to the subject Einstein.

”That is an important difference. It is fact that they are both moving and not moving at the same time and in the same way.”

Not in the same way, in different ways. Technically everything is moving. The person who says it is not moving is actually saying that it is not moving IN RELATIONSHIP TO HIM/HER, the person would be WRONG to say that it is not moving AT ALL with respect to the universe.

”And as we have established on the other thread, since your revelation could be a trick, you certainly have no basis to claim ANYTHING.”

How do you know? How do you know that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not reveal that it is not a trick, such that we can know for certain that it is not? How can you know ANYTHING for that matter? Oh wait, you are dodging that question with your BS tactics :-D

”Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

And the evidence which supports THAT statement is? Zippo! Dismissed! ;-)

rhiggs said...

OK, I see

Eh, the evidence that supports all your statements and your entire worldview is zippo.

Dismissed!

:D

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: "Eh, the evidence that supports all your statements and your entire worldview is zippo."

How do you know? How do you know ANYTHING? Oh wait – the B.S. tactics – nevermind :-D Good argument though :-D

rhiggs said...

"How do you know? How do you know ANYTHING? Oh wait – the B.S. tactics – nevermind :-D Good argument though :-D"

To be honest I don't even need an argument since you are nicley refuting your own worldview...

:D

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: "To be honest I don't even need an argument since you are nicley refuting your own worldview..."

Don't need, or don't have? :-D We all know that if you had one, you would have trotted it out by now :-D

rhiggs said...

Don't need.

You have refuted yourself, and you continue to...

Keep going.

Sye TenB said...

"You have refuted yourself, and you continue to..."

Um, absolutely refuted myself according to those laws of logic which you have observed and which seem to apply?

Good argument!

rhiggs said...

LOL, you're like a turd that won't flush!!

As I said, it doesn't matter what I think, know, see or say. You have refuted yourself.

Keep it up...

:D

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: "As I said, it doesn't matter what I think, know, see or say. You have refuted yourself."

Erm, how do you know? How do you know ANYTHING for that matter?

rhiggs said...

Irrelevant

:D

Pvblivs said...

     Just as an observation, the example is more a demonstration of ambiguities in the English language than a violation of non-contradiction. The term "moving" actually means different things from different vantage points. When one gets down to it, moving from reference A is not the same as moving from reference B.
     In a nutshell, this could be described as showing a contradiction between two incompatible systems. I regard it as similar to the way proofs in Euclidean geometry need not apply to non-Euclidean systems.
     "So the assertion that if the law of non-contradiction was proven wrong, it would also necessarily NOT be proven wrong as well is clearly absurd and should be dismissed as such."
     I do have a problem with this.

1. A^~A   Axiom (NC being disproven)
2. ~A   Component of conjunction from 1
3. ~Av[NC not disproven]   Addition to disjuncion from 2
4. A->[NC not disproven]   Identity between disjunction and implication from 3
5. A   Component of conjunction from 1
6. [NC not disproven]   MP 5 and 4  QED

     I am somewhat leery of dismissing things as absurd, partly because some absurdities are real. None of this aids Sye's pretense at argument. A claim of "accounting" for logic would imply that it was not universally assumed.

rhiggs said...

Pvblivs,

Thanks for the comment.

I take your point about grammatical ambiguity. I prefer the version of the liars paradox in Part II as an example of the non-universality of the law of NC.


As for your concern about this:

"So the assertion that if the law of non-contradiction was proven wrong, it would also necessarily NOT be proven wrong as well is clearly absurd and should be dismissed as such."

My point is that if you accept that "if the law of non-contradiction was proven wrong, it would also necessarily NOT be proven wrong", due to the allowance for contradictions....

....then by the same rational you have also accepted that it HAS been proven wrong, due to allowance for contradictions.

And so on....

It is classic reductio ad absurdum, hence I called it absurd.